Escolha sua fonte:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 Português 
 Français 
 English 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Banco de dados - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Descrição deste banco de dados documental (Site da AFAR)
Atualmente 3053 fichas
Canal do YouTube (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=2808

Criado em : 26 Nov 2017
Alterado em : 26 Nov 2017

 Modificar esta ficha
Siga este link somente se você tiver um palavra chave de editor!


Compartilhar: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Difícil

Nota bibliográfica (sem autor) :

Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - Vol. 2017, 6

Autores :

West, H.M.; Jozwiak, M.; Dodd, J.M.

Ano de publicação :

2017

URL(s) :

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.…
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009792.pub3

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Background: Women with a prior caesarean delivery have an increased risk of uterine rupture and for women subsequently requiring induction of labour it is unclear which method is preferable to avoid adverse outcomes. This is an update of a review that was published in 2013. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms associated with different methods used to induce labour in women who have had a previous caesarean birth. Search methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (31 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any method of third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction, with placebo/no treatment or other methods in women with prior caesarean section requiring labour induction in a subsequent pregnancy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. Main results: Eight studies (data from 707 women and babies) are included in this updated review. Meta-analysis was not possible because studies compared different methods of labour induction. All included studies had at least one design limitation (i.e. lack of blinding, sample attrition, other bias, or reporting bias). One study stopped prematurely due to safety concerns. Vaginal PGE2 versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 42 women): no clear differences for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.03, evidence graded low), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low), serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low). Also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The GRADE outcomes vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes were not reported. Vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 38 women): this trial stopped early because one woman who received misoprostol had a uterine rupture (RR 3.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 84.66) and one had uterine dehiscence. No other outcomes (including GRADE outcomes) were reported. Foley catheter versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, subgroup of 53 women): no clear difference between groups for vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.44, evidence graded low), uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.09, evidence graded low), and caesarean section (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.92, evidence graded low). There were also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Double-balloon catheter versus vaginal PGE2 (one trial, subgroup of 26 women): no clear difference in caesarean section (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.32, evidence graded very low). Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death were not reported. Oral mifepristone versus Foley catheter (one trial, 107 women): no primary/GRADE outcomes were reported. Fewer women induced with mifepristone required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76). There were slightly fewer cases of uterine rupture among women who received mifepristone, however this was not a clear difference between groups (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.02). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Vaginal isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) versus Foley catheter (one trial, 80 women): fewer women induced with IMN achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.21, evidence graded low). There was no difference between groups in the number of women who had a caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59, evidence graded very low). More women induced with IMN required oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.32). There were no clear differences in the other reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. 80 mL versus 30 mL Foley catheter (one trial, 154 women): no clear difference between groups for the primary outcomes: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20, evidence graded moderate) and caesarean section (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24, evidence graded moderate). However, more women induced using a 30 mL Foley catheter required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). There were no clear differences between groups for other secondary outcomes reported. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Vaginal PGE2 pessary versus vaginal PGE2 tablet (one trial, 200 women): no difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.60, evidence graded very low), or any of the reported secondary outcomes. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Authors’ conclusions: RCT evidence on methods of induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean section is inadequate, and studies are underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences for many outcomes. Several studies reported few of our prespecified outcomes and reporting of infant outcomes was especially scarce. The GRADE level for quality of evidence was moderate to very low, due to imprecision and study design limitations. High-quality, adequately-powered RCTs would be the best approach to determine the optimal method for induction of labour in women with a prior caesarean birth. However, such trials are unlikely to be undertaken due to the very large numbers needed to investigate the risk of infrequent but serious adverse outcomes (e.g. uterine rupture). Observational studies (cohort studies), including different methods of cervical ripening, may be the best alternative. Studies could compare methods believed to provide effective induction of labour with low risk of serious harm, and report the outcomes listed in this review. © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sumário (português)  :

Comentários :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Palavras-chaves :

➡ indução ; misoprostol (Cytotec)

Autor da esta ficha :

Import 26/11/2017 — 26 Nov 2017

Discussão (exibir apenas português)
 
➡ Reservado para usuários identificados



 Li a carta de discussões e aceito as condições (leia as diretrizes)

barre

Efectuar uma nova consulta especialista --- Outro pedido simples

Criação de uma ficha --- Importar registros

Gerenciamento de usuários --- Fazer backup do banco de dados --- Contato

bar

Esta base de dados é gerida pela Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
filiados Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
Ele é alimentado pelas contribuições de voluntários interessados ​​em compartilhar informações científicas.
Se você aprovar este projeto, você pode nos ajudar de várias maneiras:
(1) tornar-se um colaborador com base nisso, se você tem um pouco experiência na literatura científica
(2) ou apoio financeiro AFAR (veja abaixo)
(3) ou tornar-se um membro da AFAR (ou outra associação afiliada à CIANE).
Faça login ou crie uma conta para seguir as alterações ou se tornar um editor.
Contato afar.association(arobase)gmail.com para mais informações.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Doar para a AFAR (clique em “Faire un don”) nos ajudará a manter e desenvolver sites e bancos de dados
públicos para o apoio das decisões informadas dos pais e cuidadores com relação ao parto